I need to catch Furthur, those guys can't be along for that much longer

I've seen them a couple of times. IMO, they are a mediocre tribute band, a weak pale simulation of the Dead.

Bob Weir is still extremely talented, but without a great lead guitarist, the music suffers. I have no idea why they picked John Kadlecik. He's no better than mediocre. Maybe Bob was sick of playing second fiddle?

I love apple but I believe other companies have hit the trillion mark and then came back down. I remember reading an article. I would love to know if that article was false or if this title is false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Shares of Apple have been projected to reach $1,000 in calendar year 2014, which would give the company a market capitalization of about a trillion dollars, making it the first company to ever reach that milestone.

Analyst Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray raised his 12-month price target for AAPL stock to $910 on Tuesday, up from his previous prediction of $718. He sees shares of the company reaching the $1,000 mark just beyond his one-year price target window.

As it has for years, the iPhone will continue to drive Apple's growth going forward, Munster believes. He sees at least 70 percent of all two-year-old iPhone owners upgrading in a given quarter.

"That suggests 33% of iPhones in a given quarter through 2015 are 'in the bag,'" he said. "We believe this is conservative given it expects an average iPhone life of 24 months."

Piper Jaffray's surveys found that 30 percent of iPhone 4S buyers at launch were upgrading from an iPhone 4, which suggests the upgrade window for those users is closer to 21 months.

"If we assume an average iPhone life of 21 months, and 85% of users upgrade to a new iPhone, that implies 45% of iPhones through 2015 are 'in the bag,'" he wrote.

For the March quarter, Munster sees Apple selling 33 million iPhones, which is a 10 percent increase from his previous prediction of 30 million. He expects the iPhone will have an average selling price of $630.

"We believe demand remains strong for the iPhone 4S based on global store checks and momentum from the 3rd-gen iPad launch," he said. His estimates are slightly ahead of Wall Street's expectations of 30 million iPhones for the March qAuarter.

Munster's discussion of a $1,000-per-share value of Apple came just a day after analyst Brian White with Topkea Capital Markets said he expects shares of AAPL to reach $1,001. He sees the price being driven largely by the $100 billion opportunity in the television market, which Apple is widely expected to enter in the next year.

Also this week, Mark Moskowitz with J.P. Morgan increased his December 2012 price target to $715, up from his previous prediction of $625. He sees Apple selling 31.1 million iPhones and 13.8 million iPads in the March quarter.

Apple is scheduled to reveal its earnings for the March 2012 quarter on April 24 after markets close. A conference call with analysts will occur at 2 p.m. Pacific, 5 p.m. Eastern.

1. the FREE 3GS/iPhone 4 is subsidized by the carriers so Apple will earn a profit.

2. People who are interested in a free phone (students, etc.) , aren't going to buy a $99 or $199 phone anyway. These are the same people who got a free (and crappy) Android smartphone because the iPhone was too expensive.

3. AT&T has been offering a FREE iPhone 3GS for a year now so this is not new.

It's not going to happen. If Steve Jobs were still alive I'd say it was possible. But Apple has lost its visionary leader. Already, Apple has started to veer away from Steve's way of doing things in little ways. Over time that process will accelerate and Apple will become just another corporate monster. Apple's cachet, so meticulously cultivated by Jobs, will evaporate and sales will stagnate. The inevitable decline has already begun. Apple may be growing for now, but it's just momentum at this point. The driving force is gone.

This person says Apple will become like any other "corporate monster" because it will lose its "cachet."

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty321

Totally agree. People just don't understand this fact yet. As one great example, take a look at Apple's newest commercial "iCloud". I sat 3 non-technical people in a room, and not one of them could tell me WTF was going on in that ad. The ad doesn't even have a voiceover to explain what you're watching onscreen. Steve Jobs NEVER would have approved that ad, but now that Phil Schiller is running the marketing show, there's nobody to keep his bad instincts in check anymore. Same thing with all the other executives... Ron Johnson is gone, and the worst retail guy in UK history is now running Apple Retail?! The Titanic is beginning to sink, the cracks are already showing, yet nobody is paying attention.

This person says Apple is like a chicken running around without its head because the visionaries are gone and the marketing bozos are taking over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AjitMD

I agree... SJ was unique in terms of leadership, creativity. He created products and entire new markets that people were not aware they needed. He ran a tight budget on expenses... now they are busy giving themselves huge stock options plans and using the cash to do buybacks, etc. I do not see anybody filling his place. Kind like trying to replace Alexander The Great... nobody even came close.

This person says that the crew is going crazy over money having lost their Great Leader.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

Just look at the Grateful Dead without Jerry. Furthur is just as good!

This person says the Great Leader was like the guiding spirit in an iconic acid head band.

No one considers what Apple is in the business of doing, what it was established to do.

It didn't get big and successful by selling commodities like oil, or by selling dumb transmmission capacity like AT&T, or dumb machines like GM or Toyota, or dumb entertainment like Disney, or even smart entertainment like the Grateful Dead.

Apple sells intelligence machines, mind amplifiers, terminals for communicating with the noösphere. They suck people in relentlessly because people are happy to have devices that give them cognitive power.

This business founded by Steve Jobs and Jony Ive is self-perpetuating and self-correcting. If a new product doesn't delight, it won't make it out of the company testing. If it doesn't do mind amplification, it won't even be tested. This business of selling intelligence and mind amplification is new in human history. You can't compare its trajectory to any previous category of business. It's infinite.

So stop the doom scenarios. They ignore the larger picture of what Apple is doing in the world.

And it won't be apple tv but PC sales. In a year apple will be the biggest seller of pc's in the world. Which will mean the biggest seller of phones/tablets/pc's in the world. That IMO means they are worth 1001$ a share. The other 2 mayor revenue drivers will be a case controller and wireless controller for iOS and apple tv. This 2 will disrupt handheld gaming and tv sales...

To be honest I don't see how apple does not become a trillion dollar company.

It's not going to happen. If Steve Jobs were still alive I'd say it was possible. But Apple has lost its visionary leader. Already, Apple has started to veer away from Steve's way of doing things in little ways. Over time that process will accelerate and Apple will become just another corporate monster. Apple's cachet, so meticulously cultivated by Jobs, will evaporate and sales will stagnate. The inevitable decline has already begun. Apple may be growing for now, but it's just momentum at this point. The driving force is gone.

I micturate upon your verbage.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

I see no reason why Apple couldn't reach $1 trillion in market cap by 2014. What a lot of Apple critics, pundits, and haters always seem to ignore is Apple's room for growth in the global handset and PC markets (around 9 and 6% shares, respectively) while the tablet market is just getting started and will quadruple over the next few years.

Apple is only scratching the surface of China and it's already the second-largest market in the world for Apple. Then there are other emerging markets like Brazil and India that Apple has barely touched. So many people here in the US or western Europe look around and see a lot of iPhones or iPads in their vicinity and think that Apple has saturated the market but that is so far from global reality. The world is much, much bigger than most people think.

The Mac won't grow at the rate of the iPhone or iPad but I think we can reasonably expect it to grow at a steady 20~25% rate for some years to come. The iDevices may not continue their 100%+ rate for years but even half of that would be phenomenal for a company Apple's size. Then, of course, there's the TV factor. Apple's growth in the iTunes content business will continue as well. It's mind-boggling but the truth of the matter is that Apple really does have so much room for more growth.

As far as the Steve Jobs factor, I agree that he was a one-of-a-kind visionary but I really don't see why Apple can't continue building on what he has left behind. All the top Apple execs have been with Apple and Jobs for a decade or longer. Surely, they've got a good deal of Jobs' "DNA" ingrained in them to keep things moving forward. And it's so stupid to speculate "What would Steve have done." That's like saying, "What kind of symphonies could Mozart have written had he lived longer?" or how far would Alexander the Great have gone in his conquests had he not died at the age of 32.

It's really funny to read people saying, "Steve wouldn't have done this or that." Really? How do you know? Have you hung out with him for years? I suppose some people like to think that they know and understand his mind or, more likely, they just put themselves on a pedestal to say that their opinion is like that of Steve's. We just don't know and will never ever know what Steve would have thought of something, so why even bring it up?

History does not necessarily have to repeat itself. Yes, it does happen a lot but that does not mean it's inevitable every time. There are plenty of examples in history of people, nations, companies, and organizations of some sorts constantly evolving and moving forward while adapting to new eras emerging around them. The thing about Apple that befuddles and spooks a lot of people is that what Apple has achieved and is still achieving are totally unprecedented. There's just no case like Apple in the history of business or society in general.

One other thing that gets brought up constantly is that Apple is now just too big to be innovative or nimble. Well, Apple has been a multi-billion Fortune 500 company for many years now. I see many much, much smaller companies in both the tech and other industries move much, much slower than Apple. So why is that? And why is Apple raking in like 75% of the profits in the entire global mobile phone industry? Because Apple is simply beating the living crap out of the competition through better ideas and unparalleled execution across all aspects of their operations.

I believe Apple will continue to move into other industries that they can disrupt in the future. The TV market is next but I feel it's more of Apple absorbing the medium into their ecosystem than trying to move into a static market of entrenched incumbents like Samsung, Sony, LG, Panasonic, etc. I surely expect Apple to move into the auto industry with a similar mindset. Tie it all in into the ecosystem and then extend.

Then there's the wireless communications sector and even the energy sector that I can envision Apple absorbing into their ecosystem because it's in Apple's (and Jobs') DNA to not be dependent on anyone else. These are just natural progressions that will strengthen the ecosystem at the core and continue its expansion throughout every corner of the globe. From what I can see, Apple isn't even 5% of the way "there." And "there" will continue moving away from Apple as it gets bigger. I just don't see anything standing in Apple's way. Apple simply needs to stay the course and Tim Cook is the ideal man to steer the ship. Plus, Jobs' imprint and spirit will be prevalent within Apple for decades to come...

History does not necessarily have to repeat itself. Yes, it does happen a lot but that does not mean it's inevitable every time. There are plenty of examples in history of people, nations, companies, and organizations of some sorts constantly evolving and moving forward while adapting to new eras merging around them. The thing about Apple that befuddles and spooks a lot of people is that what Apple has achieved and is still achieving are totally unprecedented. There's just no case like Apple in the history of business or society in general.

Out of this excellent and sane post, this paragraph, and the last sentence in particular.

This is just a new era in the history of technology. There hasn't been a real communication-computer-internet-media device industry until now, only twenty years of kluge—early stuff, like cars were before electric starters. Mobile computing is just getting started. Until someone else figures out how to design these products to work as well and look as good as Apple, they have the field pretty much to themselves. As you say, the growth possibilities are stupendous.

The analysts quotes didn't mention much about the computer business. Were there none? It would be interesting to read if any of them expect OS X to eclipse the Windows OS due to the fact that so many people are enjoying their iOS devices.

Since Vista was a disaster and 7 wasn't very amazing why hasn't the news media or Wall Street jumped all over Microsoft for putting out crappy products? Why would they expect the new prettier version of Windows to be any better in its operating capabilities? Widows 8 looks prettier and seems to have great features, but does it really work or does it crash at least once a week?

Apple will continue on its momentum for a while just like it did the last time Steve departed and it was highly profitable (during the Sculley era). However, these analysts seem to have no vision beyond extending a growth curve out beyond the present along the same line. Apple stock is in a bubble. Be sure to cash out before it pops!

Please don't compare the team at Apple today to that at Apple when Steve left in 1985. It's not even close.

If Apple would become too huge it would have to split into separate businesses. Then in 10-20 years Apple is gonna be conglomerate like Samsung conglomerate.

Apple Mobility

Apple Computer

Applesoft

Apple Entertainment (iTunes and eventually more)

Apple Media and Advertising (eventually including Apple Search)

Apple Electronics (TVs, etc.)

Apple Semiconductor (based on acquired Intrinsity and eventually others)

Apple Display (based on to be acquired Sharp)

Apple Appliances

And another thing. I know you're kidding, but you raise an important issue.

Steve said the company was going to stay like a startup, focused on products, with teams grouped around developing them, presumably with the top product guys including Tim Cook meeting with them as they go along.

This would also be a new thing in business and industrial history. It differs because every new product from a mind amplification company extends a previously unextended human capability, that is, they make a new product and a new market at the same time. This is a human-driven team process, not a department-of-product-engineering objective process.

For example, the cameras now being put into their phones and pads., and their connectivity to Flickr, etc.—this is something we didn't know we needed. The product creates a new need by exending a desire. It's now the best camera you can have because it's at hand or in your pocket. It's worth buying the iPhone 4S just for the camera.

In the car business, you are only going to improve one thing, the movement from one place to another. In the mind extension business, the limits are only the senses and the imagination.

This is why a revolution is happening right in front of us, though few realize it as yet. The old rules of business and empire—what rises must fall, growth crests and collapses, etc.—are worthless in this situation. Steve started a revolution, and the playing out could take many, many years. The haters and doomsayers are going to shriek themselves silly for the forseeable future as Apple takes over more and more mindspace.

Totally agree. People just don't understand this fact yet. As one great example, take a look at Apple's newest commercial "iCloud". I sat 3 non-technical people in a room, and not one of them could tell me WTF was going on in that ad. The ad doesn't even have a voiceover to explain what you're watching onscreen. Steve Jobs NEVER would have approved that ad, but now that Phil Schiller is running the marketing show, there's nobody to keep his bad instincts in check anymore. Same thing with all the other executives... Ron Johnson is gone, and the worst retail guy in UK history is now running Apple Retail?! The Titanic is beginning to sink, the cracks are already showing, yet nobody is paying attention.

I agree that the ad has problems and I've posted about that before, but I completely disagree that Steve wouldn't have approved it. IMO, that's exactly the kind of ad he would have approved. He would have thought a voiceover was not "aesthetic".

The Titanic is beginning to sink??? With Apple's sales and stock price??? It's more like The Titanic lifted itself out of the water and began to fly at Mach3. In a still-bad economy, the stock price has doubled in a year.

Not that they need it, but the question for Apple is whether they can find yet another product line to launch successfully. Maybe it's the Apple TV, maybe it's something else. Twenty years from now, I can see Apple being in the Robotics business. The question I have for Apple is whether they're going to continue to support the high-end or whether they're going to give up that business because the numbers pale in comparison to the consumer end of the business, even though it's the high-end that gives any company it's reputation.

If they give up the high end, I don't think it will hurt the sales numbers much, but it will negatively impact how Apple is perceived.

Out of this excellent and sane post, this paragraph, and the last sentence in particular.

This is just a new era in the history of technology. There hasn't been a real communication-computer-internet-media device industry until now, only twenty years of klugeearly stuff, like cars were before electric starters. Mobile computing is just getting started. Until someone else figures out how to design these products to work as well and look as good as Apple, they have the field pretty much to themselves. As you say, the growth possibilities are stupendous.

Here is a link to a recent Forbes article that probably is on the high-end of the bullish optimism scale:

As you say, the boundaries between computing, telecommunications, all forms of media, and the Internet are not only blurring, but breaking down with these diverse areas becoming forever intertwined. And there is no other company better positioned to adapt to this massive paradigm shift than Apple. No one else is even close and Apple is the only company that can determine its own destiny through its complete control of its ecosystem. Everyone else is dependent on someone else to keep its head above water - ex. Samsung on Google, Microsoft on Nokia and vice versa, etc.

Out of this excellent and sane post, this paragraph, and the last sentence in particular.

This is just a new era in the history of technology. There hasn't been a real communication-computer-internet-media device industry until now, only twenty years of klugeearly stuff, like cars were before electric starters. Mobile computing is just getting started. Until someone else figures out how to design these products to work as well and look as good as Apple, they have the field pretty much to themselves. As you say, the growth possibilities are stupendous.

There's some truth to that.

The question is: who will Apple's competition be? Who has the ability to offer the full 'communication-computer-internet-media device' besides Apple?

Samsung would be an obvious one, but they have no software or ecosystem experience.

Sony? Maybe - if they ever got their act together and started performing in all areas as well as they do in some (like TV).

Maybe that's Google's grand strategy with the Motorola acquisition. Maybe they're seeing the same thing you are and they're planning to chase Apple in that field. At least in set-top boxes, they'll have the pole position.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

The question is: who will Apple's competition be? Who has the ability to offer the full 'communication-computer-internet-media device' besides Apple?

Samsung would be an obvious one, but they have no software or ecosystem experience.

Sony? Maybe - if they ever got their act together and started performing in all areas as well as they do in some (like TV).

Maybe that's Google's grand strategy with the Motorola acquisition. Maybe they're seeing the same thing you are and they're planning to chase Apple in that field. At least in set-top boxes, they'll have the pole position.

Google could make some serious moves. Google should get Bang and Olufsen to compete with Apple. These guys at Bang and Olufsen have world class industrial design and expertise in audio, video, telephony, home automation, and car audio. And I would make Motorola a cell phone engineering/manufacturing wing of B&O. I can also see the Adobe acquisition and a killer Amazon/Google merger.

Samsung would also benefit from acquisitions in European industrial design, and software space.

This is why a revolution is happening right in front of us, though few realize it as yet. The old rules of business and empirewhat rises must fall, growth crests and collapses, etc.are worthless in this situation.

....Bang and Olufsen[/URL] to compete with Apple. These guys at Bang and Olufsen have world class industrial design and expertise in audio, video, telephony, home automation, and car audio.

I have numerous products of theirs, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s. They truly rocked.

Now, to put in bluntly, they suck. They have not produced a half-way decent product since the birth of the digital music era. Their design has become laughable. They have totally lost their core customer base (I was in their flagship Copenhagen store a couple of years ago, and was quite shocked at how ratty it had become since I had visited it in the mid-1990s).

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

{regarding Bang and Olufson} I have numerous products of theirs, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s. They truly rocked.

Now, to put in bluntly, they suck. They have not produced a half-way decent product since the birth of the digital music era. Their design has become laughable. They have totally lost their core customer base (I was in their flagship Copenhagen store a couple of years ago, and was quite shocked at how ratty it had become since I had visited it in the mid-1990s).

Beyond that, B&O has never produced a mass market product. While Apple has a reputation for being overpriced (which hasn't really been true for at least 10-12 years), their products are at least within the realm of possibility for most consumers. B&O's stuff is way overpriced and no longer offers any quality advantage over any of the other premium brands.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Beyond that, B&O has never produced a mass market product. While Apple has a reputation for being overpriced (which hasn't really been true for at least 10-12 years), their products are at least within the realm of possibility for most consumers. B&O's stuff is way overpriced and no longer offers any quality advantage over any of the other premium brands.

The quality of both Apple and B&O industrial design is about equal and ahead of motorolas and samsungs. But what's different is that Apple products oriented on mass market while B&O is oriented on wealthy consumer.
Apple has a different business model:

Few or just one single product (keeps production cost low)

Great industrial design

Marketing hype brought to perfection

Cheap Chinese labor

B&O business model:

Full range of products

Great Industrial Design

Modest marketing oriented on elite consumer

European manufacturing labor

Now: in order to compete with Apple, Google could use B&O high end industrial design and consumer electronics expertise, producing for mass market at Apple prices with the help of Motorola and chineese foxconns.

B&O has full range of products: audio, video, tv, car entertainment, phones, home automation, even computer, but overall - too many models and overpriced for mass market. They can reduce number of models to one, use Google marketing muscle, Android OS, motorola mobile expertise and low cost labor.

What's going to be happening is a hardware build-out, not a URL real-estate craze and venture capital boom.

Nearly everybody in the world wants a computer/camera/phone in their pocket or a screen in their hand. It will be a larger build-out than the first personal computer revolutionobviously, because you won't need a desk, just a pocket.

There may be a secondary bubble, say in apps like Facebook, but that won't affect the hardware companies, or the dominant company, i.e., Apple.

You need to do a little more research on the single company that is driving this 'bubble' as you call it.

It's amazing how many of the trolls on this forum seem unable to differentiate between your average, everyday company that exists purely to make money, and a company like Apple.

I wonder if it is this inability to accurately interpret feedback (an ability extremely important in many different aspects of life, including the creation of successful relations) is what drives some of the individuals to be in the position that they are in now, actively seeking attention in places like this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur

Nice try. But a categorical error.

What's going to be happening is a hardware build-out, not a URL real-estate craze and venture capital boom.

Nearly everybody in the world wants a computer/camera/phone in their pocket or a screen in their hand. It will be a larger build-out than the first personal computer revolution—obviously, because you won't need a desk, just a pocket.

Anybody who's in the pocket-making business is going to make a fortune!

It's amazing how many of the trolls on this forum seem unable to differentiate between your average, everyday company that exists purely to make money, and a company like Apple.

I wonder if it is this inability to accurately interpret feedback (an ability extremely important in many different aspects of life, including the creation of successful relations) is what drives some of the individuals to be in the position that they are in now, actively seeking attention in places like this forum.

Every single time there that Apple's success is brought up they say it's a fluke, or it's a bubble, or that it'll come crashing down any day now. Year after year we've seen Apple outperform, out innovate, and out maneuver every market they are in yet they can't seem to grasp why Apple is a success.

You don't even need to have a nuanced and in-depth understanding of technology to see Apple leverage their successes into other markets and to tie their products together with services to make the whole system build off itself... yet they think Apple is doomed.

Now that Jobs has passed I keep reading about all the things Apple is doing that Jobs wouldn't have tolerated or how it's drastic change in direction that will spell their doom. So their success was now warranted in retrospect but it's not all down here from here?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

You need to do a little more research on the single company that is driving this 'bubble' as you call it.

It's amazing how many of the trolls on this forum seem unable to differentiate between your average, everyday company that exists purely to make money, and a company like Apple.

As someone else suggested earlier, Apple's position may be changing the entire consumer electronics industry into a communications-internet-electronics-media-advertising composite which covers a much wider range than a single company used to do and which no one else is (yet) doing.

This mirrors what has happened in some other areas. For example, in water treatment, it used to be that one company would provide ion exchange. Another would do RO. Someone else would do waste water treatment and chemical pretreatment. Someone else would do filtration. Yet another would do carbon filtration. Over the past decade, larger companies have been building groups which offer a one-stop shop for full water treatment services. Unfortunately, they have not done so as in integrated whole. The different companies in the group still offer different products and different design methodologies so you still need an integrator. It's not one clean, simple, modular package. But there is some overlap in the concepts.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

It's not going to happen. If Steve Jobs were still alive I'd say it was possible. But Apple has lost its visionary leader. Already, Apple has started to veer away from Steve's way of doing things in little ways. Over time that process will accelerate and Apple will become just another corporate monster. Apple's cachet, so meticulously cultivated by Jobs, will evaporate and sales will stagnate. The inevitable decline has already begun. Apple may be growing for now, but it's just momentum at this point. The driving force is gone.

Pile of FUD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoxMacCary

That special, irreproducible "Apple/Steve Vibe" just isn't there anymore.

Wait, what's that? On the horizon? IT'S THE IPHONE NANO. We KNOW that Apple HAS to release an iPhone nano! It's GOING to happen! People want smaller screens and no data and no apps! And the xMac! Apple's going to have to release one of those! And what's this? Steve Jobs was alive!

There are two things that come to mind when I think of how/why Apple has become so successful:

1) I don't remember when Steve said this, but years ago he talked about building "the whole widget", instead of buying bits & pieces from other companies, and hoping they fit together and will play nicely. Related to this is user experience. While other companies focused specs and featuresbecause they assumed that to consumers, "size matters"Apple focused on making products that people would want to use. Doesn't matter if it's 5 MHz or 500 GHz, as long as it helps you do what you want to do. Apple's philosophy for years as been to get the technology out of the way, so that the user can do what he/she wants to do. And clearly, Apple has made the right choices: they're making more money and selling more (and more expensive!) products than anyone else, and in a crappy global economy, when you'd think that people would want to save their money and buy "cheaper" stuff.

2) Apple is huge, but very very streamlined. Unlike many other companies (Samsung, Sony, Motorola, HP, etc.) which make a gazillion products in the attempt to please as many people as possible, Apple makes just a few, and there's not much overlap between them. Other companies are operating on the assumption that customers want choicesisn't that the first thing that Android acolytes say? That Android is "open" and you have more "choices".
When I was in design school, we were told that you *don't* want to give your client a gazillion choices. What you want to do, is find out what their needs are (and try to anticipate/read between the lines as well), work on a gazillion options in your studio, away from the client, and then present the client with three, or better yet, two of your best results.

Where to go from here? It's highly unlikely that Apple will squander their success and start making dumb choices. It's pretty clear that there's an ethos there that will not soon dissipate. Tim Cook may not be the charismatic, visionary leader that Steve Jobs was, but he knows what he's doing, and I think he believes in what Apple is doing, and knows that they're on the right track, so he will push his people to keep going. Same with Jony Ive. He's become more disciplined over the years, and is designing products that are simple, functional and beautiful. He's designing stuff that he wants to make, not what some market research surveys says he should make.
I keep thinking that Apple should break back into the enterprise space, but on the other hand, why do they want/need to? There are more consumers and laypersons in the world than there are engineers and IT people. And IT departments will want/need to buy their hardware at the lowest prices they can, and Apple doesn't do bargain-basement, volume discounts. It's highly unlikely that Apple would "waste" money building servers or blades or whatever for 3-5% profit margin. That said, I would still like to see an Apple Enterprise division. It would just be cool to see racks of Apple servers, or Apple-based render farms, or data-houses building their own clouds using iCloud as their model (licensed, of course!). That would once-and-for-all close the whole "Apple doesn't make real computers" argument. Then again, trolls never really go away, do they?

Someone mentioned the possibility that Apple might enter the automotive arena. I don't think they'd actually build cars, but I could see them partnering with major auto manufacturers to embed a lot of Apple tech (Siri, navigation, iTunes, communications, etc.) into new cars. You wouldn't even need to bring your iPod with you, or you could, but you wouldn't need to plug it in. The car's built-in wifi/bluetooth, or mobile network connection would grab your playlist off of your device, or sync with your playlist from the house while it's parked outside and start playing your music whenever you like.

Hmmmm... Maybe once they've conquered planet Earth (by 2015, I predict), they could use that "spaceship" they're building to establish a colony on Mars.